The idea of deliberately terminating a pregnancy has become such a controversial topic nowadays, so what do you think? Are you part of the debate between whether it is the woman's choice or the murder of a human life?

There are many circumstances under which an abortion can take place, so when, if so, would it be considered right?

At 11/22/2015 10:01:05 PM, moe4 wrote:The idea of deliberately terminating a pregnancy has become such a controversial topic nowadays, so what do you think? Are you part of the debate between whether it is the woman's choice or the murder of a human life?

There are many circumstances under which an abortion can take place, so when, if so, would it be considered right?

In my view a foetus is a pretty meaningless organism. It is only as it develops through childhood it's life obtains any value. If a woman for whatever reason does not want a baby then itvis perfectly legitimate for her to terminate the pregnancy at any stage. It is human instinct to reproduce and rare children hence the rarity of abortion. But when it is desired it id not up to the government to place legal obstacles in the way of an individual. Their body, their life and their choice.

At 11/22/2015 10:01:05 PM, moe4 wrote:The idea of deliberately terminating a pregnancy has become such a controversial topic nowadays, so what do you think? Are you part of the debate between whether it is the woman's choice or the murder of a human life?

There are many circumstances under which an abortion can take place, so when, if so, would it be considered right?

In my view a foetus is a pretty meaningless organism. It is only as it develops through childhood it's life obtains any value. If a woman for whatever reason does not want a baby then itvis perfectly legitimate for her to terminate the pregnancy at any stage. It is human instinct to reproduce and rare children hence the rarity of abortion. But when it is desired it id not up to the government to place legal obstacles in the way of an individual. Their body, their life and their choice.

What legal obstacles? Be specific.

Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

At 11/22/2015 10:01:05 PM, moe4 wrote:The idea of deliberately terminating a pregnancy has become such a controversial topic nowadays, so what do you think? Are you part of the debate between whether it is the woman's choice or the murder of a human life?

There are many circumstances under which an abortion can take place, so when, if so, would it be considered right?

In my view a foetus is a pretty meaningless organism. It is only as it develops through childhood it's life obtains any value. If a woman for whatever reason does not want a baby then itvis perfectly legitimate for her to terminate the pregnancy at any stage. It is human instinct to reproduce and rare children hence the rarity of abortion. But when it is desired it id not up to the government to place legal obstacles in the way of an individual. Their body, their life and their choice.

Though, for a child to be of any value it needs to become one in the first place, and as foetuses are the beginning of it all they, in technicality, have some sort of importance. Many religions and moral standpoints believe that the foetus is a living thing and therefore deserves similar rights as any free-walking human as well, so when speaking of legal obstacles, there's more than just one for which an argument can be made.

At 11/22/2015 10:01:05 PM, moe4 wrote:The idea of deliberately terminating a pregnancy has become such a controversial topic nowadays, so what do you think? Are you part of the debate between whether it is the woman's choice or the murder of a human life?

There are many circumstances under which an abortion can take place, so when, if so, would it be considered right?

In my view a foetus is a pretty meaningless organism. It is only as it develops through childhood it's life obtains any value. If a woman for whatever reason does not want a baby then itvis perfectly legitimate for her to terminate the pregnancy at any stage. It is human instinct to reproduce and rare children hence the rarity of abortion. But when it is desired it id not up to the government to place legal obstacles in the way of an individual. Their body, their life and their choice.

I take it, on your view, the unborn does not have the right to life, because it lacks the criteria of personhood?

At 11/22/2015 10:01:05 PM, moe4 wrote:The idea of deliberately terminating a pregnancy has become such a controversial topic nowadays, so what do you think? Are you part of the debate between whether it is the woman's choice or the murder of a human life?

There are many circumstances under which an abortion can take place, so when, if so, would it be considered right?

In my view a foetus is a pretty meaningless organism. It is only as it develops through childhood it's life obtains any value. If a woman for whatever reason does not want a baby then itvis perfectly legitimate for her to terminate the pregnancy at any stage. It is human instinct to reproduce and rare children hence the rarity of abortion. But when it is desired it id not up to the government to place legal obstacles in the way of an individual. Their body, their life and their choice.

What legal obstacles? Be specific.

The legal obstacles are banning it either completely or after a certain stage of pregnancy.

At 11/22/2015 10:01:05 PM, moe4 wrote:The idea of deliberately terminating a pregnancy has become such a controversial topic nowadays, so what do you think? Are you part of the debate between whether it is the woman's choice or the murder of a human life?

There are many circumstances under which an abortion can take place, so when, if so, would it be considered right?

In my view a foetus is a pretty meaningless organism. It is only as it develops through childhood it's life obtains any value. If a woman for whatever reason does not want a baby then itvis perfectly legitimate for her to terminate the pregnancy at any stage. It is human instinct to reproduce and rare children hence the rarity of abortion. But when it is desired it id not up to the government to place legal obstacles in the way of an individual. Their body, their life and their choice.

Though, for a child to be of any value it needs to become one in the first place, and as foetuses are the beginning of it all they, in technicality, have some sort of importance. Many religions and moral standpoints believe that the foetus is a living thing and therefore deserves similar rights as any free-walking human as well, so when speaking of legal obstacles, there's more than just one for which an argument can be made.

Yes arguments can be and are made. If a religious person chooses to carry an unwanted baby due to fear of repercussions from God that is their decision. If an atheist chooses to abort an unwanted baby that is their decision. Ultimately the decision is one for each individual to take. A foetus is less intelligent than a sheep or a cow. It in my view is not deserving of special protection.

At 11/22/2015 10:01:05 PM, moe4 wrote:The idea of deliberately terminating a pregnancy has become such a controversial topic nowadays, so what do you think? Are you part of the debate between whether it is the woman's choice or the murder of a human life?

There are many circumstances under which an abortion can take place, so when, if so, would it be considered right?

In my view a foetus is a pretty meaningless organism. It is only as it develops through childhood it's life obtains any value. If a woman for whatever reason does not want a baby then itvis perfectly legitimate for her to terminate the pregnancy at any stage. It is human instinct to reproduce and rare children hence the rarity of abortion. But when it is desired it id not up to the government to place legal obstacles in the way of an individual. Their body, their life and their choice.

I take it, on your view, the unborn does not have the right to life, because it lacks the criteria of personhood?

Yes exactly. It lacks the intelligence and development that define personhood.

At 11/22/2015 10:01:05 PM, moe4 wrote:The idea of deliberately terminating a pregnancy has become such a controversial topic nowadays, so what do you think? Are you part of the debate between whether it is the woman's choice or the murder of a human life?There are many circumstances under which an abortion can take place, so when, if so, would it be considered right?

If the mother's life is in danger, abortion should be an option. Otherwise not.

At 11/22/2015 10:01:05 PM, moe4 wrote:The idea of deliberately terminating a pregnancy has become such a controversial topic nowadays, so what do you think? Are you part of the debate between whether it is the woman's choice or the murder of a human life?There are many circumstances under which an abortion can take place, so when, if so, would it be considered right?

If the mother's life is in danger, abortion should be an option. Otherwise not.

How about if its due to the mother's inability to care for the child properly if it were to be born? Should it be an option then?

At 11/22/2015 10:01:05 PM, moe4 wrote:The idea of deliberately terminating a pregnancy has become such a controversial topic nowadays, so what do you think? Are you part of the debate between whether it is the woman's choice or the murder of a human life?

There are many circumstances under which an abortion can take place, so when, if so, would it be considered right?

In my view a foetus is a pretty meaningless organism. It is only as it develops through childhood it's life obtains any value. If a woman for whatever reason does not want a baby then itvis perfectly legitimate for her to terminate the pregnancy at any stage. It is human instinct to reproduce and rare children hence the rarity of abortion. But when it is desired it id not up to the government to place legal obstacles in the way of an individual. Their body, their life and their choice.

What legal obstacles? Be specific.

The legal obstacles are banning it either completely or after a certain stage of pregnancy.

I agree that it's subjective and banning it completely takes away the ability of choice, but I think that prohibiting a mother from having an abortion after a certain stage is for the mother's safety as well.

At 11/22/2015 10:01:05 PM, moe4 wrote:The idea of deliberately terminating a pregnancy has become such a controversial topic nowadays, so what do you think? Are you part of the debate between whether it is the woman's choice or the murder of a human life?

There are many circumstances under which an abortion can take place, so when, if so, would it be considered right?

In my view a foetus is a pretty meaningless organism. It is only as it develops through childhood it's life obtains any value. If a woman for whatever reason does not want a baby then itvis perfectly legitimate for her to terminate the pregnancy at any stage. It is human instinct to reproduce and rare children hence the rarity of abortion. But when it is desired it id not up to the government to place legal obstacles in the way of an individual. Their body, their life and their choice.

What legal obstacles? Be specific.

The legal obstacles are banning it either completely or after a certain stage of pregnancy.

I agree that it's subjective and banning it completely takes away the ability of choice, but I think that prohibiting a mother from having an abortion after a certain stage is for the mother's safety as well.

That's a good point actually. I suppose its logical to allow it if it's proven by medical professionals the process does not cause a significant risk to the mother. Maybe a specialist would need to sign off later term abortions.

At 11/22/2015 10:01:05 PM, moe4 wrote:The idea of deliberately terminating a pregnancy has become such a controversial topic nowadays, so what do you think? Are you part of the debate between whether it is the woman's choice or the murder of a human life?

There are many circumstances under which an abortion can take place, so when, if so, would it be considered right?

In my view a foetus is a pretty meaningless organism. It is only as it develops through childhood it's life obtains any value. If a woman for whatever reason does not want a baby then itvis perfectly legitimate for her to terminate the pregnancy at any stage. It is human instinct to reproduce and rare children hence the rarity of abortion. But when it is desired it id not up to the government to place legal obstacles in the way of an individual. Their body, their life and their choice.

What legal obstacles? Be specific.

The legal obstacles are banning it either completely or after a certain stage of pregnancy.

I agree that it's subjective and banning it completely takes away the ability of choice, but I think that prohibiting a mother from having an abortion after a certain stage is for the mother's safety as well.

That's a good point actually. I suppose its logical to allow it if it's proven by medical professionals the process does not cause a significant risk to the mother. Maybe a specialist would need to sign off later term abortions.

Yes, banning something should mainly be based off the concern for safety, but then again, it really depends on how one views the foetus and its safety. But in that case, should law consider the reasons for having an abortion as well, if they were to decide to things along those lines, or is that irrelevant to it?

At 11/22/2015 10:01:05 PM, moe4 wrote:The idea of deliberately terminating a pregnancy has become such a controversial topic nowadays, so what do you think? Are you part of the debate between whether it is the woman's choice or the murder of a human life?

There are many circumstances under which an abortion can take place, so when, if so, would it be considered right? : :

All abortions came from the will of God so it's his choice, not a choice of his created beings.

At 11/22/2015 10:01:05 PM, moe4 wrote:The idea of deliberately terminating a pregnancy has become such a controversial topic nowadays, so what do you think? Are you part of the debate between whether it is the woman's choice or the murder of a human life?

There are many circumstances under which an abortion can take place, so when, if so, would it be considered right?

In my view a foetus is a pretty meaningless organism. It is only as it develops through childhood it's life obtains any value. If a woman for whatever reason does not want a baby then itvis perfectly legitimate for her to terminate the pregnancy at any stage. It is human instinct to reproduce and rare children hence the rarity of abortion. But when it is desired it id not up to the government to place legal obstacles in the way of an individual. Their body, their life and their choice.

I take it, on your view, the unborn does not have the right to life, because it lacks the criteria of personhood?

Yes exactly. It lacks the intelligence and development that define personhood.

It lacks intelligence and development soon after its born too. So you're going to kill Simone who is stupid and not grown up?

Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

At 11/22/2015 10:01:05 PM, moe4 wrote:The idea of deliberately terminating a pregnancy has become such a controversial topic nowadays, so what do you think? Are you part of the debate between whether it is the woman's choice or the murder of a human life?

There are many circumstances under which an abortion can take place, so when, if so, would it be considered right?

At 11/22/2015 10:01:05 PM, moe4 wrote:The idea of deliberately terminating a pregnancy has become such a controversial topic nowadays, so what do you think? Are you part of the debate between whether it is the woman's choice or the murder of a human life?There are many circumstances under which an abortion can take place, so when, if so, would it be considered right?

If the mother's life is in danger, abortion should be an option. Otherwise not.

How about if its due to the mother's inability to care for the child properly if it were to be born? Should it be an option then?

At 11/22/2015 10:01:05 PM, moe4 wrote:The idea of deliberately terminating a pregnancy has become such a controversial topic nowadays, so what do you think? Are you part of the debate between whether it is the woman's choice or the murder of a human life?

There are many circumstances under which an abortion can take place, so when, if so, would it be considered right?

In my view a foetus is a pretty meaningless organism. It is only as it develops through childhood it's life obtains any value. If a woman for whatever reason does not want a baby then itvis perfectly legitimate for her to terminate the pregnancy at any stage. It is human instinct to reproduce and rare children hence the rarity of abortion. But when it is desired it id not up to the government to place legal obstacles in the way of an individual. Their body, their life and their choice.

What legal obstacles? Be specific.

The legal obstacles are banning it either completely or after a certain stage of pregnancy.

I agree that it's subjective and banning it completely takes away the ability of choice, but I think that prohibiting a mother from having an abortion after a certain stage is for the mother's safety as well.

That's a good point actually. I suppose its logical to allow it if it's proven by medical professionals the process does not cause a significant risk to the mother. Maybe a specialist would need to sign off later term abortions.

Yes, banning something should mainly be based off the concern for safety, but then again, it really depends on how one views the foetus and its safety. But in that case, should law consider the reasons for having an abortion as well, if they were to decide to things along those lines, or is that irrelevant to it?

Yes I think the law has to be about preventing the mother risking her own health by having a dangerous abortion. I don't personally think the reason for having the abortion is a significant factor. If a woman is not significantly risking her health by having an abortion it should be legal. It should be a decision for an individual and not a government or other people.

At 11/22/2015 10:01:05 PM, moe4 wrote:The idea of deliberately terminating a pregnancy has become such a controversial topic nowadays, so what do you think? Are you part of the debate between whether it is the woman's choice or the murder of a human life?

There are many circumstances under which an abortion can take place, so when, if so, would it be considered right? : :

All abortions came from the will of God so it's his choice, not a choice of his created beings.

If thats your belief then thats something you can choose to follow. However you have no right to dictate to others that they must follow the opinion of a religion they may not even believe in. It should be for the individual to make the decision. It's no right of a government or other people to dictate to somebody what to do with their body.

At 11/22/2015 10:01:05 PM, moe4 wrote:The idea of deliberately terminating a pregnancy has become such a controversial topic nowadays, so what do you think? Are you part of the debate between whether it is the woman's choice or the murder of a human life?

There are many circumstances under which an abortion can take place, so when, if so, would it be considered right?

In my view a foetus is a pretty meaningless organism. It is only as it develops through childhood it's life obtains any value. If a woman for whatever reason does not want a baby then itvis perfectly legitimate for her to terminate the pregnancy at any stage. It is human instinct to reproduce and rare children hence the rarity of abortion. But when it is desired it id not up to the government to place legal obstacles in the way of an individual. Their body, their life and their choice.

I take it, on your view, the unborn does not have the right to life, because it lacks the criteria of personhood?

Yes exactly. It lacks the intelligence and development that define personhood.

It lacks intelligence and development soon after its born too. So you're going to kill Simone who is stupid and not grown up?

Sorry I don't understand what you are trying to point out other then agreeing that the lack of physical and cognitive development of a foetus does not give it a greater right to life than an animal. A government preventing abortion is absurd. It's like forcing someone to keep an unwanted pet dog.

At 11/22/2015 10:01:05 PM, moe4 wrote:The idea of deliberately terminating a pregnancy has become such a controversial topic nowadays, so what do you think? Are you part of the debate between whether it is the woman's choice or the murder of a human life?

There are many circumstances under which an abortion can take place, so when, if so, would it be considered right?

At 11/22/2015 10:01:05 PM, moe4 wrote:The idea of deliberately terminating a pregnancy has become such a controversial topic nowadays, so what do you think? Are you part of the debate between whether it is the woman's choice or the murder of a human life?

There are many circumstances under which an abortion can take place, so when, if so, would it be considered right?

In my view a foetus is a pretty meaningless organism. It is only as it develops through childhood it's life obtains any value. If a woman for whatever reason does not want a baby then itvis perfectly legitimate for her to terminate the pregnancy at any stage. It is human instinct to reproduce and rare children hence the rarity of abortion. But when it is desired it id not up to the government to place legal obstacles in the way of an individual. Their body, their life and their choice.

I take it, on your view, the unborn does not have the right to life, because it lacks the criteria of personhood?

Yes exactly. It lacks the intelligence and development that define personhood.

So, I assume you are happy to bite the bullet, like Singer, Tooley, etc, when it comes to infanticide?

At 11/22/2015 10:01:05 PM, moe4 wrote:The idea of deliberately terminating a pregnancy has become such a controversial topic nowadays, so what do you think? Are you part of the debate between whether it is the woman's choice or the murder of a human life?

There are many circumstances under which an abortion can take place, so when, if so, would it be considered right?

In my view a foetus is a pretty meaningless organism. It is only as it develops through childhood it's life obtains any value. If a woman for whatever reason does not want a baby then itvis perfectly legitimate for her to terminate the pregnancy at any stage. It is human instinct to reproduce and rare children hence the rarity of abortion. But when it is desired it id not up to the government to place legal obstacles in the way of an individual. Their body, their life and their choice.

I take it, on your view, the unborn does not have the right to life, because it lacks the criteria of personhood?

Yes exactly. It lacks the intelligence and development that define personhood.

So, I assume you are happy to bite the bullet, like Singer, Tooley, etc, when it comes to infanticide?

It's a difficult issue. It's hard to draw a line on where a human becomes significant enough to have full rights. I would oppose any killing of babies commited by parents without authority or consultation. However I would allow immediate euthanasia of babies after birth if desired. I would also euthanize all babies with no parents of foster parents willing to care for them. I would also allow the euthanazia of babies diagnosed with serious physical and mental disorders and also allow the euthanazia of severely mentally hamcicaped children and adults. The goals of this strategy is to reduce the economic burden on the state while ending the suffering of those without parents or with severe disabilities. I would not force anybody to euthanize a child or encourage it. It's something to generally discourage but in some cases it is the best solution.

At 11/22/2015 10:01:05 PM, moe4 wrote:The idea of deliberately terminating a pregnancy has become such a controversial topic nowadays, so what do you think? Are you part of the debate between whether it is the woman's choice or the murder of a human life?

There are many circumstances under which an abortion can take place, so when, if so, would it be considered right?

In my view a foetus is a pretty meaningless organism. It is only as it develops through childhood it's life obtains any value. If a woman for whatever reason does not want a baby then itvis perfectly legitimate for her to terminate the pregnancy at any stage. It is human instinct to reproduce and rare children hence the rarity of abortion. But when it is desired it id not up to the government to place legal obstacles in the way of an individual. Their body, their life and their choice.

I take it, on your view, the unborn does not have the right to life, because it lacks the criteria of personhood?

Yes exactly. It lacks the intelligence and development that define personhood.

So, I assume you are happy to bite the bullet, like Singer, Tooley, etc, when it comes to infanticide?

It's a difficult issue. It's hard to draw a line on where a human becomes significant enough to have full rights. I would oppose any killing of babies commited by parents without authority or consultation. However I would allow immediate euthanasia of babies after birth if desired. I would also euthanize all babies with no parents of foster parents willing to care for them. I would also allow the euthanazia of babies diagnosed with serious physical and mental disorders and also allow the euthanazia of severely mentally hamcicaped children and adults. The goals of this strategy is to reduce the economic burden on the state while ending the suffering of those without parents or with severe disabilities. I would not force anybody to euthanize a child or encourage it. It's something to generally discourage but in some cases it is the best solution.

That seems like an incredible price to pay for the view of personhood you hold. If abortion is to be defended on an argument where the consequence is that killing a healthy newborn if desired is morally permissible, I'm just flabbergasted that is an acceptable price to pay for some folks. In any other debate, a view leading to such a seemingly morally abhorrent consequence, it seems to me, would be rejected out of hand.

But I guess why that's why on the other side of this debate - I just don't get it.